The NRA Myth of Arming the Good Guys

The above graphic is from the article in Mother Jones.  It shows the mass shootings for the past 30 years, and the number of fatalities and injuries in each of them.  2012 has been a record-smashing year in this regard.  This journalist covered 30 mass shootings in the US in the past 30 years (total was 62), and in 2012 there were 7 mass shootings – way above the yearly average.  Keep in mind that to be called a “mass shooting” at least four people have to be killed and it has to happen in a public place.  So, home shootings and the recent shootings on rural roads of Pennsylvania (which only killed three) do not count.

And not a single one of these mass shootings were stopped by a regular citizen who had a gun.  In the Tucson mass shooting, a citizen with a gun nearly shot at an innocent person – who had taken Jared Loughner’s gun away.

From the article:

A closer look reveals that their case for arming Americans against mass shooters is nothing more than a cynical ideological talking point—one dressed up in appeals to heroism and the defense of constitutional freedom, and wholly reliant on misdirection and half truths. If only Sandy Hook's principal had been packing heat, the argument goes, she could've stopped the mass killer. There's just one little problem with this: Not a single one of the 62 mass shootings we studied in our investigation has been stopped this way—even as the nation has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of recent laws has made it easier than ever for ordinary citizens to carry them in public places, including bars, parks, and schools.

While the above article calls this a “myth” I believe what the NRA chief is peddling is LIES, FLAT OUT LIES.

And the NRA knows they are lies.  That is why they lobbied-up and shut down any research by the NIH or CDC on gun violence and gun injuries and gun deaths.  They don’t want the facts to interfere with their lies.  Here are some facts about gun research and guns in America (done before the research was shut down).

Silencing the Science on Gun Research

The nation might be in a better position to act if medical and public health researchers had continued to study these issues as diligently as some of us did between 1985 and 1997. But in 1996, pro-gun members of Congress mounted an all-out effort to eliminate the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Although they failed to defund the center, the House of Representatives removed $2.6 million from the CDC's budget—precisely the amount the agency had spent on firearm injury research the previous year. Funding was restored in joint conference committee, but the money was earmarked for traumatic brain injury. The effect was sharply reduced support for firearm injury research.

Investigating the Link Between GunPossession and Gun Assault

RESULTS: After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS: On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

The Association Between the Purchase ofa Handgun and Homicide or Suicide

RESULTS: The adjusted relative risk of suicide was 1.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4, 2.5) for persons with a history of family handgun purchase from a registered dealer. The adjusted relative risk for homicide, given a history of family handgun purchase, was 2.2 (95% CI = 1.3, 3.7). For both suicide and homicide, the elevated relative risks persisted for more than 5 years after the purchase.
CONCLUSIONS: Legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death.

Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor forHomicide in the Home

RESULTS:  During the study period, 1860 homicides occurred in the three counties, 444 of them (23.9 percent) in the home of the victim. After excluding 24 cases for various reasons, we interviewed proxy respondents for 93 percent of the victims. Controls were identified for 99 percent of these, yielding 388 matched pairs. As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home. After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

CONCLUSIONS:  The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

And from Harvard Schoolof Public Health - more research.